FORD F150 $5600 tail lamp repair ?

This is just NUTS !


https://www.yahoo.com/autos/2018-ford-f-150s-faulty-200000675.html

Sounds like a comprehensive insurance claim to me

It was caused by water leaking into the tail lights, which was a known problem/defect on that truck. Comp covers weather related incidents, fire, theft, vandalism, impact with an animal. It's not a comp claim.

And folks think I'm a fool for driving a 30 year old truck.

What was Ford thinking ? my boss at my part time job has several Ford trucks , one is a 2015 F350 pickup it has a burned out headlight ...the grille has to be removed to reach the bulb , I tried reaching it by removing the inner fender liner but still couldn't reach it. Don't they think of these things when designing the truck ?

Don't they think of these things when designing the truck ?

No! Someone sent little Johnny to engineering school that has absolutely no knowledge of turning a wrench. Looks good on the software used to design it is all he needs to worry about. They need to get these idiots to have to fix/change parts on what they design then you wouldn't see this kind of thing!

Nope, only the cost of building it. In the 1960's, serviceability was a thing, today, only the cost of production.

Absolutely. The goal is to manufacture them as quickly and cheaply as possible. That is a cost associated with EVERY vehicle. Maintenance on the other hand, may or may not occur. Think about it, 30 years ago who would have guessed that the complete dash would have one, maybe two, screws with the rest being held together with VELCRO®.

BTW, wait until you have to replace a windshield that has all the advanced safety sensors.

BTDT, 2015 Durango, $535.83 installed for OEM glass, could have saved ~ $100 with Safelite. I'd guess those numbers would be double today. Went with OEM partly out of preference and partly to avoid the potential of having a dealer visit to get the safety features "aligned". It's been a few years, (March 2019) memory is a bit fuzzy on details.

That mess is just one example of every late model vehicle running around with all the mandated 'safety" equipment we have now. I did a Can Bus class at a GM training center a few years back. One of the cars to diagnose was a Camaro no-start. It was caused by a Can short in the RF headlight.........explain THAT to the customer.

my old "bus" [99 caravan] looks better and better as the years go by.

CAN-BUS, just what the doctor ordered. Doctor Victor Frankenstein, that is.

The modern inconveniences and electo-nanny stuff is why I hold on to my '89 Dually and the newest vehicle I own, a '97 Mustang GT.
Ain't nothin' I can't fix on my Road Runners.
And my '93 Pathfinder Daily may out-live me @ 225K so far and still nice and running like a watch...
I'm perfectly happy keeping my old stuff nice & reliable, and avoiding loan payments.

I was hoping you'd chime in and comment Back to Ford, the BBB, NHTSA and anywhere else one can

Reminds me of the Laser company i worked for. CAD was new at the time so they hired a consultant to assist in designing a new system. The term that became very popular was "Relax, its been CAD checked". That was good until the parts started arriving for the prototype. Some things just weren't thought through. The biggest was mounting the HV Power supply with its solid aluminum backside smack up against the heat exchanger (radiator) thereby blocking ALL air flow from the fans. The parts did bolt up, there was just that little airflow problem 🙄🤣

I heard NAC was selling his old reliable '82 Ford F150 and getting a 2018 F150 Platinum?

What I can't fathom, why aren't these light assemblies water tight? It seems like the last water tight light assemblies we had were the old fashion seal beam headlights? Water intrusion seems to be a constant for about the last 40+ years now, across all makes? Long ago I recall drilling some 1/8" drain holes in parking light assemblies so they wouldn't fill up with water.

Lot's of hand wringing and teeth gnashing on the Durango forums about the race track light fixtures filling up with water and shorting out the LED's. So far, we've been lucky with ours.

I get to the end of the video and all of the new parts, taillights, modules, wiring harness, etc., and the $5600 total and the way he is going to prevent this from happening again is to apply electrical (dielectric) grease to all of the connections. WHY CAN'T OR WHY COULDN'T FORD HAVE DONE THAT ON THE ASSEMBLY LINE?? And why hasn't Ford recalled all of them and put dielectric grease on them free of charge for all of the sold units???? Seems like a simple fix or preventative measure that wouldn't cost $5600 hundred freaking dollars! Can you say CLASS ACTION SUIT to get back $5600 or at least maybe something. Ford Tough $#!T. I guess if you buy a new vehicle with all of those "safety features" you should buy a couple of tubes of dielectric grease and spend the weekend putting it on ALL of your electrical connections, because the manufacture won't.

They should've been. It became a known defect for which Ford did not step up to handle for customers.

Buick had the same issue on the backup lamp (a huge giant 1 piece lamp) on the Rendezvous. The backup lamp would fill with water. Ford had a similar issue with the applique on the lift gates of Explorers and Mountaineers where water would leak through the lower gasket for the back glass, settle behind the applique, and when the water would freeze and expand, it would split the applique in half vertically. We used to get customers reporting claims for this one, but it's not a covered loss. Several cars have issues with headlights fogging up, while it's never a problem on other cars.

One thing I don't understand is why manufacturers don't add any drainage or ventilation to lights. It's a well known problem of water intrusion and it doesn't have to be a manufacturing defect but just minor damage.

The easiest fix is an 1/8" drill bit

It's not just lights either. Plenty of vehicles get water pudding in trunks and floors. Just recognize that keeping water out is very difficult, finding a leak even more so. The standing water is the big problem, let it out.

Modern day car ownership outside of the OEM warranty means owning a liability. Even when under warranty- the problem may have no fix and the customer gets strung along for a BS ride. (Think dual clutch Ford transmissions)

A big reason I like older vehicles, all the problems are known and solved.

My 06 Ram sliding back window has leaked for years, I’ve drilled more hole in the channel but done with it. That black gooey stuff they stick under windshields is next sealing the whole sliding part. I looked into a solid glass but was quoted $600 to install.

We did a lot of warranty repairs on those Rams, resealing the back slider-window assemblies.
A lot of the leaks were at the top, and the sealing could also be pretty poor at other areas around the perimeter.
Frequently it was actually the CHMSL above the back glass leaking.
Ft cab lights were another occasional leak source.

I tell so many people that come into the shop that there are 3 things you need to have with any late model vehicle.

A factory warranty that covers as much as possible
Full coverage that covers as much as possible
lastly deeppocket books to cover what the above does not cover.

Are you sure the leak isn't coming from your 3rd brake? It's a well known problem in that era truck.

https://www.detroitmuscletechnologi...asket-chmsl-leak-repair-adhesive-backed/

Think thats bad price one for a Super Duty. Or even better a newer Benz.....

Its a double edged sword. People want all the tech- all the niceties bells and whistles and the MFGRs are happy to give it to them. No one takes the time to consider what the cost of that tech will be 5 plus years down the road. Toyota as a business would die if they built their current vehicles to the quality standard they established in the 1990s. I know why the MFGRs switched to electric blend door motors- but my god it can be thousands to replace them deep in a dash. Cable and vacuum blend door operation is notwancient and maybe barbaric- but it worked fine for the second, third fourth etc owner of that vehicle as it aged.